[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinWtLNGaNezxe0qMwDP3LQvAV7L_k_QPrwsar=e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:06:40 -0800
From: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Laurent Chavey <chavey@...gle.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: Allow ethtool to set interface in loopback mode.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> wrote:
>>>> Since this is a boolean it SHOULD go into ethtool_flags rather than
>>>> being a high level operation.
>>>
>>> It could do, but I though ETHTOOL_{G,S}FLAGS were intended for
>>> controlling offload features.
>>
>>
>> It just seems the number of hooks keeps growing which takes more space
>> and increases complexity.
>
> Is there any complication/downside to using flags in the (un?)likely event
> of wanting different flavors of loopback in the card?
The purpose of the patch is to stress / exercise the ingress/egress
path(s). So like Ben had suggested earlier to keep the loopback
implementation as near as possible to the host would streamline /
simplify the implementation & usage.
This is not a new patch and the earlier thread has an answer for this.
It's just that when I re-submitted this patch today, it went in as a
new patch! Here are the reference(s) the old thread -
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&w=3&r=1&s=Allow+ethtool+to+set+interface&q=t
>
> rick jones
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists